That is correct RobSpur, i'm not familiar with the historical arguments of the muslim brotherhood but thanks for informing me. I also read on wikipedia that the Kurds aren't given citizenship because of some (probably very badly and corruptly taken) census back in the 60s, probably similar to how we made turing a criminal and didn't honour him to recently. Whilst i think the HRW do a good job, they are looking at particular things and if thats all they found on Syria, then it goes to show that Assad hasn't been the most evil dictators around. Hell even Britain are getting it in the neck and i would consider us as one of the most liberal and fair societies in the world
They dont even seek independence mate. They want a semi autonomous region within a federal syria. They do not fight Assad, even when theure next to each other. They share information togethor. They do not seek to depose Assad
The ideal situation would probably be to remove Assad and replace him with something less appalling. Is that achievable? With all of the other parties involved, it's certainly complicated, at best. The problem is that you can't sell working with a dictator who tortures and murders people as a long-term solution. The list of atrocities during the war is now too long for him to consider this anything other than a temporary thing. He knows that someone's coming for him once this ends, one way or another.
Their situation is fluid, but their long-term goals are clearly in conflict with those of Assad. He won't allow democracy, which is their entire basis. Ergogan's currently their biggest issue, though. Everyone's also fighting ISIS, which complicates things further. What a ****ing mess.
So just to run through the discussion, correct me if i am wrong: - Life is a **** show right now - Life was better under assad pre war and it would have been better for Syria that he remained a dictator and oppressed a minority of people now onto the after: - do you think your ideal situation is plausible? To me, if we really wanted to do that we'd have to provide air and maybe ground resistance. Do you think the Russians would let this happen. Is there even a candidate to replace him with that we even know of? we've seen Libya and Iraq and there is no proper ruling parties or leadership. Libya is being run by militias and has 2 governments at each others throat and they had a will to change - Is keep Assad more palatable? When you say working with him to sell to the people, is this the people in Syria or do you mean as a foreign policy to the western world? As for the list of atrocities in the war, it's been ugly but both sides commit these and I'm fortunate to not be in this situation and would think i would act honourably but if i knew i was taking out some evil people i wouldn't hesistate to commit such atrocities if it was me or them.
I don't think anyone's trying to sell working with a dictator, they (well Trump at least) is advocating pursuing a policy that would end the war. That's not a tough sell in my book. Btw, in response to effectivelt an armed invasion of their country, what would you say would have been an appropriate response by the Syrian government ? What would you have thought about people complaining that the British government was arresting and killing Germans if they had invaded during WW2 ?
I don't disagree that their long term goals are not the same as Assad's. That doesn't mean they couldnt reach a peaceful settlement with him though. And my understanding isnt that they seek democracy for Syria, they seek an autonomous Kurdish federarion within Syria (which almost certainly wouldnt be a democracy). The bottom line though is that Clinton last night advocated arming the Kurds to take down Assad, and i) the Kurds arent at war with Assad ii) they do not have a policy or aim of removing him iii) even if they did (which they dont), it would cause a full on war with Turkey. I agree it's a mess. Trump's policy creates a clear template for resolving it. Clinton's does the opposite.
Was that a sustainable situation, though? There were a ton of people pushing for change, which the current mess demonstrates. I don't know if the best solution is plausible. I doubt that any of us do. Is Assad more palatable? I don't think that he's got any future, no matter what happens. The genie's out of the bottle now, so I can't see how he can remain in power, regardless of the political solution. It may be possible to deal with this via mostly diplomatic channels, but his head will roll, regardless. I think that most sides would either be happy with that or accept it as inevitable, though. I meant that you couldn't sell it to people on both sides really, but mainly to Western eyes. His (alleged) targeting of Western journalists will see that it's not allowed to be smoothed over.
If you look at where there is peace and relative stability and normality in Syria now, it's in the areas comtrolled by Assad. There's a reason why there were 10 times more people living in Assad's half of Allepo than there were in the rebel half, before the latest bombardment started. And it's not because everyone there is desperate to get away from Assad.
Trump's advocating whatever Putin suggests, which is his policy on just about everything. He actually disagrees with his own VP candidate, bizarrely. Are you really comparing this to Nazi Germany? I think that you might have got your sides mixed up, for a start. Dictator treats people that he likes better shock. More at ten.
That is the thing, when i see things like tonnes of people pushing for a change, i'm highly sceptical. Yes there is a common sentiment but how many people turn up to these protests. I think people get caught up in a wave of emotion to be manipulated when lives have been lost. What was it, 5000 people who came out to revolt in a population of 20 million? Then the support came out of from the west and people look at how we live without fully understanding how to get there. We have people demonstrating here all the time about how unfair our system is but there is not another system we would like to emulate yet so we haven't started fighting each other. I see what you are saying about its hard to pick a solution but i think it would be very easy to sell stopping the war and being able to let the syrians rebuild their country. I don't think there is any opposition whatsoever about stopping ISIS and taking them out which the western world have been dilly dallying around. As for syrian government vs FSA, not sure what we can do here as we have seen how volatile any of the ceasefires have become, but i'm not sure i see a scenario where the FSA can take syria without our help and falling into the libyan trap. Why should it matter selling it to our western eyes anyway? It's not our country and it should be up to what is best for syria, not what we find palatable
Government doesn't like people who capture parts of their country by military invasion, and who seek to depose them and take over the whole country by armed force, shock. More at 10.
I think that you have to remember that people weren't actually allowed to protest, so anyone turning up at all was quite a statement. I don't think that you can really compare the situation to protests over here, to be honest. The situation was very different to anything we've ever experienced. Stopping ISIS is clearly a desirable outcome for all sides, but how far do we have to go before that's on the table? Everyone seems to be prioritising other things, for some reason. Selling that solution to Western eyes might not be relevant to us, but it definitely is to any politicians involved. This situation won't go away quickly and anything that they promise now will be brought up for years. It's easy to see why you wouldn't want to associate yourself publicly with someone like Assad.
That would be the Kurds, then... Assad didn't just treat the Islamists badly and he's been acting like this for well over a decade. I'm sure that there's some sympathy for him on that, given their increasingly ****ty behaviour, but it wasn't isolated to them. They actually benefit when they're treated horribly anyway, as it's used as a recruiting tool.
The Kurds havent invaded, or taken the territory by force, they were already there. And they don't seek to depose the government or take over the whole country by force. So, basically, no ! He is an 'Islamist' himself, as are about 95% of his population, so it's no surprise that he didnt target them tbh.
The Kurds may have already been there, but they certainly weren't in charge. Do you think that they'd be allowed to maintain the current situation if Assad regained total control? Assad's not an Islamist, despite his numerous other failings. He actually criticised Erdogan for being one, strangely.
I was unaware of the definition of Islamist. Apologies, I got that one wrong. Whilst I agree that if there had been no other conflict, there's not a chance in hell Assad wouldve allowed the Kurds to control their areas as they are now btw, I would suggest that there's no or little comparison between their actions and those of the (other) 'rebels'. Do I think the Kurds could negotiate the autonomous region they want within Assad's Syria. Yes, I do. But whether they could or not, Clinton's stated policy of arming them to take over the whole country is palpably nonsense.
If Assad wants to deal with ISIS, then he'll need to work with Erdogan, in all likelyhood. Erdogan won't allow that situation to continue.
Trump's stated plan last night, isnt for Assad to deal with ISIS. It's for the US and arussia to take ISIS out, and leave Assad to mop up the rest (possibly excludin the Kurds). To me btw, Erdogan is a far worse dictator than Assad. He's the real evil **** in the region.
I assume that you're not including Trump or Putin in your assessment? Erdogan's probably worse because he's doing it to a country that was a secular democracy, of sorts. Probably moving in the right direction, too. That's all gone. There's plenty of horrible arseholes to choose from, though. Why limit yourself to one?
